The Supreme Court on Friday (10 October 2025) expressed concern over the Madras High Court passing two seemingly conflicting orders in connection with the Karur stampede that claimed 41 lives during a political rally of actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).
A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria was hearing an appeal filed by TVK challenging the October 3 order of the Madras High Court’s principal Bench directing a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the September 27 incident. The same day, the Madurai Bench of the High Court had declined a plea for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the tragedy.
At the outset, the Supreme Court questioned why the principal Bench in Chennai had entertained a petition on the same subject when the Madurai Bench had already declined a similar plea.
“In para 3 of the order it is mentioned that writ petition filed before Madurai bench was declined. So this a petition filed in Chennai. The relief was to formulate a SOP. So whether this relief would fall under a criminal WP? It is not about quashing. This is an incident with respect to Karur. Once it is a petition to Karur and Madurai bench was taking cognisance, so why this was entertained (by the principal Bench)? That too for SOP? Principal bench can take cognisance we are not denying. But we want to understand from you,” the Bench said.
The Court also noted that while the plea before the principal Bench had sought only the formulation of a standard operating procedure (SOP) for roadshows and rallies, the High Court went beyond that prayer to order an SIT probe.
“What is disturbing us is prayer was for permission to conduct meeting. But High Court saw something else. And then SOP was prayed for. High Court went into SIT. We should limit somewhere,” the Supreme Court observed.
Background
The stampede took place in Karur on September 27 during a public rally addressed by actor-turned-politician Vijay. Forty-one people were killed when a large crowd gathered to see the actor.
On October 3, Justice N. Senthilkumar of the Madras High Court’s principal Bench ordered an SIT probe into the incident, observing that the State’s investigation had been inadequate. The judge also noted that no criminal case had been registered in connection with two alleged accidents involving Vijay’s campaign bus during the stampede.
Although Vijay was not named in any FIRs filed after the incident, the High Court’s observations led to a criminal case being registered against the driver of his vehicle in connection with the alleged hit-and-run incidents.
The October 3 order was issued in response to a petition seeking an SOP for managing crowds during political rallies and roadshows. While passing the order, Justice Senthilkumar said, “This Court cannot close its eyes, remain a mute spectator, and shrink from its constitutional responsibilities.”
The order also contained strong criticism of the TVK leadership’s handling of the situation following the tragedy, prompting the party to move the Supreme Court.
TVK’s Appeal
TVK, in its appeal before the Supreme Court, argued that the High Court had made extensive observations against the party and its officials without making them a party to the proceedings or giving them a chance to present their side.
“In a PIL petition seeking the issuance of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for road shows or rallies, without any supporting pleadings or affidavits of fact that relate to the tragedy on 27.09.2025, and without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner to be heard and place the correct facts before the Hon’ble Court,” the plea stated.
The party also alleged that there could have been a “pre-planned conspiracy by certain miscreants to create trouble at the site of the rally.” It added that video clips relied upon by the High Court were shown without verification or authenticity, leading to “distortion of facts and serious prejudice” against TVK.
The plea further pointed out that the High Court had criticised the independence of the State police investigation but nevertheless constituted an SIT composed entirely of Tamil Nadu police officers. “The order has caused serious prejudice to the party as the High Court appointed an SIT made up entirely of State Police officers despite the High Court’s own remarks casting doubt on their independence,” the plea said.
TVK requested the Supreme Court to appoint a retired judge of the Supreme Court to conduct or oversee the investigation.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, representing TVK, argued that the case should have been heard by the Madurai Bench rather than the principal Bench. “This should have been heard by Madurai bench because Madurai bench already entertained petitions. Counsel appear without any affidavit being called. It’s a stampede. It’s a human tragedy. I agree. But to make observations,” he said.
He stressed that the High Court had passed remarks without hearing TVK. “I am not even made a party. How are all these observations made without giving a chance to explain? I am not even made a party. There are so many people who come near the bus. One of them was hit. There is no statement. There is no verification. We are not impleaded. It is disposed of on the same day. They (Madras HC) have not seen the investigation. They have not even see the report. There is no status report, there is no case diary,” he said.
Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, also appearing for TVK, said the party was not opposed to an SIT probe but wanted it to be chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge. “We need a retired Supreme Court judge to oversee. Let there be a fair investigation. You (High Court) appoint a SIT of state officials after PP and AAG have made allegations against me! All we want is an impartial investigation. If any retired judge is nominated to chair the SIT, let him also have the freedom to constitute the SIT,” he said.
The Bench then questioned the State over the conflicting decisions of the two Benches of the High Court. “Two things emerge. One. Nature of writ petition. Karur incident. One set of petition was filed for SOP. One in Chennai, one in Madurai. Madurai was division bench. Chennai was single-judge. We have seen the representation also. Where is the need to take the cognisance? And that too it is being taken by division bench? When incident is in Karur?”
Responding, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the State of Tamil Nadu, said that the Madurai Bench did not pass an order after noting that a single-judge of the principal Bench was already considering the matter. “This SOP permission came to Madurai bench because of Karur incident. When division bench is cognisant that single judge is doing… this is a fallacy,” the Supreme Court observed while discussing the submissions.
The Court also remarked that the two High Court orders were inconsistent. “Same day different orders have been passed? There is (should be) some propriety for the system,” Justice Maheshwari said.
Rohatgi maintained that the State had no vested interest and that the SIT composition was decided by the High Court, not the government. “I am not standing on the way of this case. Under the impugned judgement, the court itself appointed an SIT. We never gave any names. We have no axe to grind. There is no reason to doubt the SIT or the officers,” he said.
To this, the Bench noted, “But they are your officers.” Rohatgi responded, “The HC picked him out. Mr. Garg is a very senior CBI officer who has come in deputation.”
Senior Advocate P. Wilson, also for the Tamil Nadu government, argued that actor Vijay should bear responsibility for the stampede. “The entire problem started when instead of coming at the time which as given. They said actor will come in the afternoon. So people started gathering since 7 am,” he said.
Senior Advocate V. Raghavachari, representing one of the victims, accused the State police of mishandling the situation and questioned the integrity of the probe. “40 bodies post mortem was conducted in 4-5 hours late at night. What sort of material were they collecting? Post mortems are normally not conducted during night. And they are saying there’s a one man commission. CM announces it in the morning. A Sunday the notification was published. The State, if it had been fair enough, would have handed the case to the CBI. They say we want our own officers,” he submitted.
After hearing all parties, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict.
(With inputs from Bar and Bench)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
